You may not have noticed, but the Oxford English Dictionary has declared "post-truth" the word of the year for 2016.

Post-truth is defined as "relating to or denoting circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief." It sounds dry, but it refers to a profoundly dangerous trend.

There's never been a shortage of fake information, whether in checkout-line tabloids or through the duplicity of The New Republic magazine's Stephen Glass or The Washington Post's Janet Cooke. But the speed and reach of social media, and the low level of media literacy among some consumers, make today's lies particularly troubling. Some current fabrications are both clever and nearly believable -- such as the widely repeated claim that the Pope had endorsed Donald Trump.

The trend to falsehood has infused even some scientific publications. Lay readers could be completely deceived by publishers who run more or less whatever's submitted, without the rigours of peer review.

Postmedia recently reported that two respected Canadian medical journal chains have now been purchased by a company with a reputation for publishing fake research. He has also uncovered other fakery in the science journal business, by submitting academically nonsensical articles to 18 academic journals. Eight took the bait, and one publishing group even asked our reporter to join its editorial board.

This science-journal rubbish allows shifty academics to pump up their credentials while unscrupulous journals rake in profits. Honest brokers are also harmed: ethical researchers risk being scammed by the clever frauds. Respectable journals need to fight back. If you consider the damage done to public health by shoddy claims that vaccines are dangerous, you get some insight into why fake science articles are a problem.

There are consequences to our world when truth is no longer respected, but must compete with the work of fabulists. In the fake-science world, fighting back means calling on known, established publications to rigorously ensure quality peer review and research.

In the wider world of general information and social media, it means closely watching what you see, not simply retweeting it based on confirmation bias. It means challenging the sources of those info tidbits flung casually your way. It requires cautious, critical thinking.